Everything is OGC... sorta... Forked Thread: Grand OGL Wiki (Updates)

Forked from: Grand OGL Wiki (Updates)

DM-Rocco said:

I understand Raven and per our agreement you have the right to do whatever you want with your material. I am simply requesting that you wait a year from the release of the material in this instance. Legally you are not obligated to do that, but I feel it is best for the magazine if you do.

Using part of the material I don’t feel would be disruptive, say a new creature or something, but I feel that releasing the whole article would hurt sales as people are still actively buying these issues. So, for the best interest of the magazine, I would ask that you honor my request to wait a year from the release date.

I do want to release issue #0 for free so people can get a feel for the magazine and you do have an article in that issue so if you want to release that in this effort I don’t have a problem with that, so long as of course that you put our info as described above in the OGL. Then in May you could add in your issue #1 stuff.

Does that sound fair to you?

Click to expand...

I'm kind of confused whenever I see something like this. All of the stuff is declared OGC and yet the publisher says "don't do anything with it because it's going to hurt us" in so many words.

So what's the point of doing OGC stuff in the first place?

No, this isn't a case of "I want everything free".

It's a case of "why declare everything free and then beg people not to do anything with it?"

If you don't want it open, don't declare it as such.

Anyone able to convince me about the logic going on here? It looks to me like things of this nature are wanting to ride the bandwagon of "Open Source Gaming" and not happy about the fact that others might really take them up on it.

Good question.

I think the idea, in this case, is to let people use it in the future. Material published as closed remains closed indefinitely. In this way, everyone can use the material freely, with the publisher's agreement, in a few years. This is especially important as lots of published material is closed off by copyright law even though its publishers are long out of business so publishing it won't hurt them. So when you find this product in the bargain bin in 5 years' time, you could pick it up and use it as-is, even though you'll never manage to find the now-defunct publisher (defunct in this imaginary scenario...).

Still, if I would want to keep things closed I'd do it. You can always release the whole thing with a more permissive OGL statement later, if you wish. It's not like I'm gonna disappear off the face of the earth.

It's simple to write an OGL designation that doesn't release anything while allowing you to use everything; for example, "All game rules and mechanics are released as Open Game Content. No text is released as Open Game Content." This plan is sheer genius in its simplicity.

I'd probably won't do that. I'd release some things as OGC, while retaining others as not. And maybe releasing the latter later. There are reasons to release everything as OGC beforehand, as I said above, but I find the downside of that (having to rely on the kindness of strangers, being in this awkward position) is just unnecessary to bear.

OGC does not grant first run/print permissions, and is free to use be all at anytime to my understanding.

Scurvy_Platypus said:

It's a case of "why declare everything free and then beg people not to do anything with it?"

If you don't want it open, don't declare it as such.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And the stuff you are obligated to declare OGC is by definition so derivative that it's pretty cheeky asking people not to use it.

If a time period is REALLY an issue, open it in a year. Why do it now? That's just a dumb business model.

If it's something you're obligated to make open (such as d20 mechanics), as I mentioned earlier, then it's so derivative that you're making a buck off someone else's work anyway, so there's no real moral imperative to honour the request.

That makes it a self-solving problem: if you want something you don't have to declare OGC, then put the work in to make it your original content.

At ENP we make everything open except story elements, product names, etc. That's because we produce d20 stuff, and we recognise that we didn't develop that system - we're riding off someone else's back (in this case WotC). We have no moral right to try and restrict someone from doing the same with our stuff, especially given that it's based off someone else's stuff.

I wish there was a bit more explanation of what exactly is being used how, as it sounds like someone is wanting to reproduce something in its entirety rather than simply wanting to use pieces from it. The latter is what I think of as the spirit of OGC...I don't see OGC as a license to copy other people's work wholesale.

Vanuslux said:

I don't see OGC as a license to copy other people's work wholesale.

Click to expand...

It is, precisely, a license to copy OGC wholesale. That's all it is.

Morrus said:

It is, precisely, a license to copy OGC wholesale. That's all it is.

Click to expand...

Can you not also alter other OGC and call it your own OGC so long as you don't try to claim ownership over existing OGC? So even altering existing OGC is ok as long as you give it back out as OGC?

Not to sound obtuse but...

Isn't that the reason so many companies released "crippled" their OGC?

Vanuslux said:

I wish there was a bit more explanation of what exactly is being used how, as it sounds like someone is wanting to reproduce something in its entirety rather than simply wanting to use pieces from it. The latter is what I think of as the spirit of OGC...I don't see OGC as a license to copy other people's work wholesale.

Click to expand...

The original quote is from the Grand OGL Wiki thread. Someone suggested including material from the "Dragon Roots" ezine (magazine?), and the quote is part of the publisher (editor's?) reply. Dragon Roots is not free, so the publisher understandably does not want it made available for free immediately after release.

I think there are better ways to deal with it, frankly. The Grand OGL Wiki is operating on a "permission" basis (they ask permission); so the publisher only needs to withhold that permission. Taking the inquiry as a chance to make a policy statement is, to me, a bit of an overreaction. Furthermore, a "gentlemen's agreement" only applies to gentlemen, and someone that eager to steal your OGC probably isn't one.

And in an even broader scope, I've seen alot of little publishers afraid that evil OGC pirates are going to come along and steal all their OGC immediately upon publication, and it's a bunch of self-important hooey. The great people at Grand OGL Wiki (and you can be one of them!), for instance, has Mongoose's ENTIRE d20 library to cull through. They're not going to get around to Basement Joe anytime soon.

Scurvy_Platypus said:

If you don't want it open, don't declare it as such.

Click to expand...

That's a fair point. I don't think there's anything wrong with requesting your OGC not be used in certain ways. Just as long as you realize that your request is not binding in any way, and you can't raise a fuss if someone doesn't honour your request.